What We Got Wrong About SCOTUS in 2025

This episode is brought to you by Ground News. Here at Amicus, we read a lot about the Supreme Court, but it's not the only news we consume. And like you, we seek out different sources on the same subject to get the full story. Ground news is a great way to get down to the facts. It's an app and website that makes it easy to compare news sources break free from algorithms and think critically about where you're getting your news. Recently, I went to Ground News to learn more about the resignation of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Ground News had rounded up coverage from 40 different sources. According to the platform, 46% of the coverage is... center or nonpartisan. But if you click right, you can see right-leaning coverage that claims, quote, Keir Starmer offered Britain nothing. And if you click left, you'll see headlines lamenting that Keir Starmer is, quote, the latest casualty of the Downing Street meat grinder. The Nobel Peace Center called Ground News, quote, an excellent way to stay informed, avoid echo chambers, and expand your worldview. Here's how to get started. Go to groundnews.com slash AC to get 40% off their unlimited access vantage subscription. That's groundnews.com slash AC and you'll get 40% off the vantage subscription, whether you subscribe yourself or send it as a gift. Make sure to use our link so that they know that we sent you. That's groundnews.com slash AC.

This episode is presented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Many of the most important legal fights in this country come down to a basic question. Who gets to make decisions about our bodies and our health care? That question isn't theoretical. It's playing out right now. The Trump administration's backers in Congress are trying to permanently defund Planned Parenthood, an effort to shut down health centers and block patients' care, especially from those with low incomes. Together, we have the power to protect and expand affordable care. Visit plannedparenthood.org slash defend and make a gift today. This is Amicus Slate's podcast about the courts and the law and the Supreme Court. I'm Dahlia Lithwick. And I'm Mark Joseph Stern. Happy holidays and welcome to the in-between, this liminal space between Hanukkah and Christmas and New Year, where we all collectively dwell in a kind of seasonal purgatory. It's as though we're lost down the back of the sofa in winter, waiting for someone to check the cushions and pull us into the new year. Which feels like the perfect time to take a beat and make some big assessments. I'm not saying we're making resolutions, but it might be helpful to think about what we've learned in this past year at the Supreme Court and in the law. And the only person that I want to do that kind of jurisprudential soul searching with is you, my right or die. Marches of Stern. Oh, the feeling is so mutual, Dahlia Lithwick. So on this end of year edition of Amicus, we are going to ask, what does the John Roberts majority really want? And how much closer did they get to achieving that in calendar year 2025? But before we get to that, we have an urgent announcement. This is the last time in calendar year 2025 that we will be urging you to join Slate Plus at the start of the show. And that's because you have only three days left to take advantage of the special discount for Amicus listeners through the end of the year, which is so close, we are running a special 50% discount offer for Slate Plus membership. This deal is exclusive to slate.com slash amicusplus at check. out enter the promo code amicus 50 to get a year of full access to all of Slate's content for just $59. Join today, and you can listen to our excellent and existential dear jurisprudence bonus episode right after this one. Our cherished amicus pluscateers have been sending in their burning questions about the courts and the law and the Supreme Court, and we have selected the very best of those, and we'll be answering them via the medium of interpretive dance. Are you sure about that one, Dahlia? No. No, we are not.

We are answering them verbally and backed by lots of research. And a total, oh my God, of almost 40 years experience collectively covering this beat, there will be no dancing. Well, there will be quiet dancing, but lots of... Legal nerdery. Slate Plus members also enjoy ad-free listening across all Slate podcasts. And can I just mention the unbridled joy of listening to Willa Paskin on Decoder Ring with zero commercial interruptions. Slate Plus members also enjoy unlimited reading on slate.com and the Slate app, every Slate game, and the members-only weekly plus digest newsletter penned by Slate's own editor-in-chief Hillary Frye. Hi, hi boss. And you'll be supporting Slate's independent journalism in a moment where independent journalism needs all the support it can get. Seriously, we cannot do it without you. Unlock this deal at slate.com slash amicus plus when you enter the promo code, amicus 50 at checkout. That's AMI-C-U-S-5-0. Okay, Dahlia, shall we turn to the matter at hand? Yes, to the year that was at the highest court in the land. Wow, with rhyming couplets, no less. And interpretive dance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court released a shadow docket decision on a case they've been sitting on for a really long time. So we're all powering down our laptops. We're getting ready for the holiday break. It doesn't have to be this way, Dahlia. There's no point. There's no point. I think they do it just to provoke us. Before we make the climb to our 30,000 foot view of the last 12 months at SCOTUS. Can you just read us into this, I think, big deal of a decision in the case concerning Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in Chicago? This is a big deal decision, not sure why it had to drop right on the eve of Christmas Eve. The court ruled against Trump, which is in itself really remarkable since it almost never does that these days. In an unsigned shadow docket order that was... Partly 6.3, the court held that the president had unlawfully federalized and deployed the National Guard in Chicago. And its reasoning applies to other cities like Portland and Los Angeles, not to the District of Columbia, unfortunately, because it has special status. So this does not apply to D.C. But for all of those other cities, the court said how Trump has tried to deploy the Guard is not aligned with federal statute. Why is that? Well, there's a federal law that says that the president confederalize the National Guard when he is, quote, unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. For months, the debate in court about this statute was a factual one, whether Trump was genuinely unable to execute the laws in places like Chicago and Portland without sending in the guard. And the assumption was that the term regular forces meant like.

federal civilian law enforcement, ICE, CBP, federal protective services, that kind of thing. When this case reached the Supreme Court, though, our friend Georgetown law professor, Marty Lieberman, filed a brief arguing that regular forces did not mean civilian police. It meant the regular military. And so the statute actually says that the president cannot send in the guard. until he has tried to execute the laws with the regular military and failed. That felt kind of like an obscure argument, I would say, since it hadn't really been made forcefully. And in fact, Chicago had not made it to the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court was clearly interested. It asked for extra briefing on the question. And then on Tuesday, lo and behold, it said, Marty Lieberman, you're right. The court declared that under this statute, the president first has to try to execute the law with the regular military. And only when that has failed is he able to send in the guard. And the court further held, this part was really five to four. This was John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett with the liberals. that the president has to lawfully send in the military. So the president needs to have some authority to send in the military to try to calm the situation. He can't simply say, oh, I want to send in the military, but I can't, or I don't have time, or it wouldn't necessarily be legal. So I'm just going to send in the guard. There is a real sort of barricade in the statute that before the president sends in the guard, he has to be able to lawfully send in the military. And then that. effort has to fail. And so the Supreme Court said that didn't happen. And it really couldn't happen here because the president hasn't argued that he has a right to send in the regular military. And so the troops may not deploy in Chicago. And that was maybe. Arguably, the single biggest defeat the Trump has faced at the Supreme Court in the second term so far. Without a doubt. And a couple things. Another unsigned order, another shadow docket order. As you said, this is. a consequential loss. And I also want to just note for all of our shruggy emoji listeners who are like nothing matters, you know, you can never reverse the tide. It turns out that law professors who are thinking outside the box and grappling with, you know, very old statutes and what is posse comitatis and, you know, what is the National Guard, like they make a big difference. And that I think is worth. stopping and pausing and saying this is why we have to keep doing what we're doing. And then there's this fun, I'm sorry, the Schadenfreude fun. What is that noise I'm hearing? Oh, what is the grinding shame-filled gears of Brett Kavanaugh, who's like, wait, what? Brett Kavanaugh stops. I didn't mean that. This is just like the absolute icing on top of the Christmas cake.

And it's Brett Kavanaugh, in an unrelated discussion, by the way, giving himself the Christmas gift of forgiveness for the Brett Kavanaugh stop. I love that when you get two Jews together on a podcast, we think that there is a Christmas cake. That's what everybody does, right? They ice the Christmas cake on December 25th. Isn't there a Christmas? I want Christmas cake. I'll never say no to cake. Especially this cake of Schadenfreude, because you are exactly right, Dahlia. I mean, a couple things. First, Brett Kavanaugh purported to agree with part of the majority. He said he agreed that regular forces meant the military. And so in theory, like on paper, he ruled against Trump. But then he spent three additional pages arguing why Trump should. still be able to do almost anything he wants and basically said that the courts should give the president deference. to simply declare, oh, I want to send in the military, but I can't, for whatever reason, and then send in the guard, which would be a huge exception that would eat the rule laid down by the majority. So Brett Kavanaugh doesn't really agree with the majority. He just didn't want to be a dissenter. Like, he always wants to be with the majority when he can, and I think that's what was going on here. But yes, the footnote, we have to talk about the footnote. So buried in this opinion saying, I agree, but I don't really, he tries to. I think, tell us, please, please cease and desist calling them Brett Kavanaugh stops. So he says, this case, by the way, is about immigration stops. And I just want to make clear that the law around immigration stops is really, really obvious. And longstanding, the Fourth Amendment requires that they must be based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence. Stops must be brief. Arrest must be based on probable cause. Officers must not employ excessive force. Moreover, officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on rate or ethnicity. Wow, what a concept, Brett Kavanaugh, a concept that you've rejected, in your own opinion, just a few months ago in September in the Vasquez-Prodomo case, where you said that immigration stops could be made. partly at least based on race or ethnicity, that a person's appearance as Latino could be a reason for them to be stopped by immigration officers. So I think he's trying to rid Brett Kavanaugh stops from the discourse, which is never going to happen. Sorry, not sorry, Brett. I think he's trying to maybe send a message to the Trump administration to cool it down, right? Because now we have like CBP Chief Gregory Bovino declaring that they can racially profile anyone they want. And that in fact, every single person in this country has to walk around with proof of citizenship or else they can be arrested. And he's probably a little unnerved that all of these violent racist arrests and abductions are now sort of taking his name. They are the Brett Kavanaugh stops.

And I also think that he feels like he doesn't want to be remembered in history as this great villain who unleashed the worst wave of violent racial profiling by the federal government since like the days of Jim Crow. And sorry, Brett, it is way too late for that. They are still Brett Kavanaugh stops. This change is nothing. You cannot walk back what you have unleashed. This is so important, Mark, and goes to... all of the quibbles that we surface about the shadow docket, which is if you're going to go ahead and reverse actual precedent about how we do stops in unreasoned random ways that then get operationalized for all time, you can't then again on the shadow docket say, oh. Sorry, I didn't mean the thing that I said. And you certainly can't do it in a case that is just not in any way relatable back to what the Brett Kavanaugh stop was doing. So this is weird dicta in a like random case that is trying to undo. crappy, but unfortunately, now enforceable doctrine. And Brett Kavanaugh just being like, no, it's a shadow docket. I can do what I want. Doesn't get you there. I get a do-over. I get a takesie-backsy, right? I will say, I've seen some commentators praising Brett Kavanaugh for sort of responding to criticism. I do not think he gets any points. No extra credit for Brett Kavanaugh. He did what he did. He should have foreseen the consequences. Every intelligent observer understood what was going to happen when that opinion dropped in September, the fact that he now seems to regret it and still hasn't apologized directly or anything, hasn't acknowledged that he was wrong, pretended that what he said earlier is consonant with what he's saying. Now, no, no, no, no, no, Brett, you do not get points. Zero points. F for all eternity. It's just shocking that we're now at the full etch-a-sketch. You know, I'm making law, I'm breaking law, I'm changing law, which, again, is one of the knocks we've had from the get-go about the shadow docket, but there's this larger danger. And you and I've been talking about this and said, every once in a while, the court is actually going to do actual law, and they're going to want a... participation trophy, right? Hey, today we participated in actual rule of law and democracy. And there is going to be, and as you said, this is starting to happen, an exultant pointing to this one decision and saying, hey, they've really learned their lesson. They're not the Maga court. They don't want to oversee the demise of democracy. Does anything about this admittedly wonderful welcome stop clocks? Every once in a while they get it right. Has anything about this National Guard in Chicago decision made you rethink the court's current relationship to Donald Trump and Maga?

Absolutely not. And the fact that anyone says otherwise really just shows how much the Overton window has shifted. I mean, let's talk about what Trump was trying to do here. He wanted to send in the National Guard to blue cities to intimidate Democratic voters to violently oppress and subjugate racial minorities and immigrant communities. He had them assist with ICE and CBP in these notoriously brutal violent immigration raids, had uniformed troops on American streets, right, attempting to enforce the law, as he understood it, which was basically deport everyone who looks like an immigrant. And the fact that the Supreme Court drew a thin line there, right, and said, oh, that... That's a little too far. That does not mean that the Supreme Court is not still largely going to be in the tank for Trump and greenlighting Trump's agenda. What it means is that he finally found the breaking point at the... far end of his agenda where at least five justices were willing to draw a line. And note, I'm not even saying the line, right? Because what Trump could now do, and there's a lot of speculation that he might, is invoke the Insurrection Act, which is an exception to the usual rule against using the military to enforce domestic law. And he could say there's mass obstruction of the federal government under the Insurrection Act. I get to send in the military. I don't need the National Guard. I don't need to worry about this decision because I can just say, I'm the commander-in-chief. Military goes into Chicago now. And will the Supreme Court stop him? We don't know. The Supreme Court hasn't even clearly indicated whether it thinks that it can review an invocation of the Insurrection Act. That would be an escalation that could sort of convince John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, oh, let's step back. Let's step. down. We really don't want to be dealing with a constitutional crisis of the judiciary against a president who wants to invoke one of the most sweeping exceptions to the general rule against military enforcing domestic law. And I just don't know. how the justices will rule in that case. But I'm not super optimistic. And so I think that this is an area where, yeah, there's some daylight between sort of federalist society dogma and what Trump wants. You know, the federalist society has not spent decades declaring that the president should be able to just send the troops into the streets. That actually kind of goes against the concept of federalism and state sovereignty. So this is an area where Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts could think for themselves. Well, that's really good. I'm glad. I'm proud for Chicago. But it does not mean that. we need to rethink the court's relationship to the president because now that they've given themselves this cover actually, now that they can say, hey, look, we ruled against Trump. I think that they are going to be even more vigorously on his side in other future cases because if anyone accuses them of being partisan, they can say, oh, we ruled against him that one time. So nobody gets to call us partisans. We are independent jurists calling balls and strikes. Stop clock, baby. Stop clock.

Let's pause now to hear from some of our sponsors. How do you keep up with AI? The competition is only moving faster. Fortunately, there's NetSuite Next. NetSuite is the AI-powered business management suite that securely connects all of your data. It's a unified suite that brings your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into a single source of truth, and it's trusted by over 43,000 customers. NetSuite Next is the next huge leap in how business gets done, because AI is built into everything you do. AI agents work alongside you to solve problems and handle routine work. And anytime you have a question about anything, just ask, just like you're having a conversation with a colleague. NetSuite is customized for a wide range of industries, so it supports the way your business truly works. Whether your company earns millions or even hundreds of millions, it's time for NetSuite next, where your business meets AI. For the first time ever, you can try NetSuite Next for free. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, go to netsuite.aI slash amicus. Built for every industry, ready for every boardroom. NetSuite.aI slash amicus. NPR understands your curiosity is boundless, but your time isn't. That's why they make up first, the three biggest news stories of the day, with the reporting and analysis to understand them in under 15 minutes. Up First's distillation of President Trump's claims of election fraud in California was a super useful preview of what we can expect in the midterms. There's no shortage of news right now. Up First doesn't just give you the headlines. It gives you the context. Recent episodes covered how American citizens are getting caught in ISIS's growing surveillance web, what the Iran war means for the U.S. economy, and why Attorney General Pam Bondi's exit is bigger than it looks. Up First does something most daily news shows don't. It asks better questions to get better answers. Not just what happened, but how it came about, why it's a big deal and what happens next. That's the difference between knowing the news and understanding it. Follow NPR's Up First podcast so you can understand what matters and what happens next. It's hard news through a human lens. This episode is brought to you by Quince. The very best summer pieces are the ones you end up wearing on repeat, comfortable, versatile, and somehow right for almost every occasion. And that's why I love Quince. Their elevated essentials use premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, and washable silk without the traditional retail markup.

Quince's 100% European linen pants, dresses and tops are the pieces you will reach for all summer long. Everything at Quince is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, so you're paying for exceptional quality, not brand markup. I just received their featherweight cashmere silk-fraid-edged scarf in the coolest stage. The scarf is as light as a cloud. It's silky soft, and it will be a summer staple for me for all the wedding. all the plane travel, and all the chilly evenings. Make your summer wardrobe feel easier. Go to quince.com slash amicus for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too, that's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com slash amicus for free shipping and 365-day returns, quince.com slash amicus. Let's step back now from Tuesday's order and instead open up the promised wide-angle lens as we now together ring or I guess maybe toll in the new year of 2026 because we really wanted this episode to be a conversation between you and me, the kind of conversation that we usually reserve for the members-only plus segment. That, of course, is where Dahlia and I often go to think out loud, trading ideas and theories and tentative first thoughts about what's happening at the Supreme Court and inside the judiciary and Donald Trump's Justice Department. And sometimes, Mark, in those conversations, we do violate our own cardinal rule on the show because we get really hyper-focused on an individual case or some individual character at the court. But... As we all remind ourselves in our editorial meetings, our job here at Amicus is not to do horse race coverage of any one lawsuit or breathless speculation about whether we can count five votes to resolve any one dispute. Our focus is, as it must be, on the stakes. The stakes of any one doctrinal shift for the country. The stakes of eroding the wall between church and states. The stakes of making it ever easier to arrest and detain and deport and denaturalize. And the stakes of a high court that appears to be ever more eager and willing, I would say, to destabilize the very idea of checks and balances on the executive branch. And in so doing to just hand the keys of the car to President Donald Trump. just one blank check after another all year long to dismantle oversight, to hobble the judiciary, and to substitute its own judgment about the ways of the world for that of the legislative branch. And for this, our year in review show, to recap the year that was, we also thought we could flip even that script to talk in terms of the stakes not just for Donald Trump and not just for Americans and not just for democracy, but the stakes for the Supreme Court itself. If it's Six Justice Maga Wing continues down this path toward Trumpist maximalism. So let me sketch out what it is worth thinking about for this conversation. Even a year ago, Mark and I, I think, would have both argued that this alleged 333 court was a myth.

But I think we also agreed, and we certainly said it a lot on this podcast, that there was some center of the court made up of the moderate conservative justices that cared about democracy in some vague sense and that really didn't want to be the last Supreme Court in the history of a functioning America and that was going to do something to stop the madness when the rubber hit the road. So. I think we were wrong, Dahlia, but we weren't, like, embarrassingly wrong. There is a center of the court, John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, to a lesser degree, Brett Kavanaugh. They are in the middle. It's just that the middle is further to the right than we ever could have guessed and much more closely aligned with Trump's agenda than we had anticipated this time last year. We thought there was going to be a three-justice center, I think, that kind of gave with one hand, took with the other. gave Donald Trump some big wins. We've known for a long time that this court was going to overturn Humphrey's executor, right? It was just a matter of time until the court let Trump fire anyone he wanted. We've known for a long time the court was going to expand Trump's power in all of these different ways, allow him to withhold federal funds and halt foreign aid and hobble inspectors general and oversight. We knew all that stuff. But even still, the way that the so-called center has enabled some of Trump's worst abuses of power. truly took me by surprise. And one example here is the abrupt abolition of nationwide injunctions, universal injunctions, right after Biden had been slapped with them left and right for four years of his presidency. Within six months of Trump returning to office, the Supreme Court says, oh, never mind, we're taking away nationwide injunctions and aggrandizing the power of the executive branch beyond what any recent president... has enjoyed. I didn't fully see that coming even after oral arguments when it was clear there was going to be like a photo finish on the question. I still thought Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts and maybe even Brett Kavanaugh would sort of walk back from the brink and say, you know, we do think Trump has some dangerous tendencies. It probably makes sense to give district courts some discretion here. Like maybe to issue a nationwide injunction in the birthright citizenship case where the president is trying to repeal the 14th Amendment, which was the actual nationwide injunction case before the court. But we were wrong about that. I was wrong. And it's highly alarming to me because if the center is that far to the right and the Thomas Samuel Alito Gorsuch wing is so far off the scale, it can't even be measured, then the court is rarely, if ever, doing its job to try to limit unlawful aggrandizement of executive power. It's facilitating it. It's rubber stamping it. There are some exceptions, but few and far between. And it's doing so. at the expense of democracy, at the expense of individual rights and Congress and all of the other parts of the government that we thought were important. So. I guess it feels to me coming to the end of 2025, like there's not really three branches of government anymore. There's barely two branches because the judiciary is now just the Supreme Court. And that's another part of this conversation. I really did not expect SCOTUS to throw lower courts under the bus the way that it did. And we've seen so many lower courts try to stand up to Trump. And the Supreme Court has just ruthlessly thrown them under the bus time and time again. So it just feels like...

The court is giving Trump the power to do almost everything he wants. There are a few footnotes. There are a few exceptions. Maybe tariffs, maybe birthright citizenship. They did just push back on sending the troops into blue cities against the wishes of the local lawmakers. And that's important. But it's still the very rare exception because otherwise. the majority of this court just seems to see itself as the guarantor of Trump's agenda. And it'll tell Congress, you want to stand in the way. It'll tell lower courts, you want to stand in the way. Too bad. Trump gets to do what he wants. And that's just not where I thought we would be today one year ago. And I think there were a couple of flavors of the three, three, three mythology floating around. And one was. Okay, sometimes it's going to be Brett Kavanaugh, sometimes it's going to be the chief. You know, every once in a while, it's going to be Amy Coney Barrett and they're going to side with the liberals in some trickle of two and three. You'll remember the Amy Coney Barrett, moderate leftist discourse of not so long ago. And I think that... We've had that vibe in prior terms, right? We've seen very different members of that newly constituted 6-3 supermajority peel off and moderate what Samuel Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch wanted to do. That is not a thing that we saw this last term almost at all. And I think it's really worth thinking about. how much we impose this wishcasting, right, on these characters and say, oh, you know, well, you know, on many, many issues, Brett Kavanaugh is going to be very moderate on most issues. Amy Coney Barrett is going to be moderate on most issues. The Chief Justice is a humble institutionalist who cares about the legitimacy of the court. Just not a lot of that going on right now. That's sort of trading off of who is going to be the quote unquote center. And maybe the other flavor of all this that I think is also proving to be fanciful wishcasting was the theory that, oh, well, you know, this is all transactional. The court is ultimately well aware of the dangers posed by Donald Trump. But they're going to save their powder, right? They're going to really draw down from their legitimacy capital until something. absolutely monstrously important happens because they couldn't possibly come out the shoot and go no, no, no, no, no, no to the president. So. Yeah, we saw initially on the early deportation case a little bit of procedural breaking mechanism this week's National Guard, some breaking mechanism. But I think you and I believed that there would be a big outrage. And then the court was going to drop the hammer, stop Donald Trump because this time it really matters.

I got to say, I don't see a ton of evidence of that. And as you noted, if you think about birthright citizenship from last term, they could have done a lot of things much smaller. But there's very little evidence that this court on the big ticket items is deciding, okay, we're going to absolutely save whatever. authority and power we have on the big ticket items. They've been, in my view, as willing to cede power to Donald Trump on big ticket cases as they have on the small ones. I think it's worth zeroing in on the deportation case where the court didn't hold its powder because, you know, our friend Steve Lodick has said on this show, and it's absolutely true, that was less about like protecting democracy or individual rights or due process or congressional prerogatives. It was more about protecting the Supreme Court's own authority because the Trump administration was trying to expel these Venezuelan migrants in the middle of the night before the courts, and specifically the Supreme Court, could get a chance to weigh in on the legality of the expulsions, which the court had already strongly suggested would be unconstitutional. And so for the Supreme Court to step in with that extraordinary order at like 1 a.m. I mean, it was great. It was better than the alternative. It was better than the court doing nothing. But once the dust settled, we realized this was the court making sure that it could be the decider. I mean, it. preserve the opportunity to greenlight these deportations in the future. All that the court was doing was saying, no, you can't evade us. We still get to sit at the very top of the constitutional pyramid, not you, Donald Trump. And I have to say, I think that the Justice Department has done a pretty savvy job of figuring out how to avoid that kind of conflict and how to take cases to the Supreme Court that screw over other parties, lower courts, Congress, whatever. still make the Supreme Court, or at least the Republican appointed justices, feel really good about the fact that they are the ultimate deciders. So I guess on that note, Dahlia, you and I staked not an insignificant amount of credibility on the proposition that The justices, maybe not across the board, but at least a super majority of them, like, cared about an independent judiciary and having courts that were truly capable of standing up to a president who abuses the law. Were we right about that? No, we were wrong on that, too. And this is really one of the things that has been dismaying because this isn't in any way. partisan issue, a political issue. This is the Supreme Court is entrusted with protecting the entire Article III judiciary. And they've just failed. They've just whiffed. And I would say more than failed, they have been in a lot of ways an accelerant mark for trashing the judiciary. And we've talked about it a lot on the show, whether it was, you know, not just the decision in the nationwide injunctions case, which.

on the merits was kind of bonkers, but the language, right, the rhetoric of going after district court judges and discrediting them as somehow not legitimate arbiters of what the law is. And the rhetoric, I mean, again, that's the same rhetoric we heard about deep state justice department prosecutors, right? In the immunity case, watching the... Supreme Court or members of the Supreme Court turn on entities that cannot protect themselves and be a part of slagging district court judges. And of course, that reaches its low water mark when we have, you know, Judge Young slagged for a decision when the court. Somehow in August was like, you didn't follow our invisible ink lemon juice shadow docket order in another case and going after district court judges who cannot apply, who try to distinguish or try to understand what a shadow docket order is and then get it wrong. You can, at the Supreme Court, say, hey, you got it wrong without going the further step that Justice Gorsuch in a concurrence, signed off on by Brett Kavanaugh, going after and impuging the intent. and the intentions of a respected senior judge, right? And so I just want to bracket that you can... disagree with lower court judges, you don't have to trash them. Because as we have said over and over again on this show, they have not got the wherewithal to protect themselves. And it is ironic to me in the extreme that if you go back and you read that Justice Gorsuch concurrence where they go after a district court judge for misapplying a shadow docket order, they talk about how it's integral and essential to the rule of law that the Supreme Court be supreme without also. slightly honoring the fact that it is also integral and essential to the rule of law that we have respect for all courts. And so I've been astounded by the willingness to say, eh, all of those district court judges, every single one that issued an injunction is suspect. I think where the wheels really started to come off the bus and that dynamic became clear was the first Alien Enemies Act deportation episode with Chief Judge Bosberg in D.C., right? Because Judge Bosberg sticks his neck out, issues a restraining order blocking these illegal deportations, and the Justice Department ignores him. We now know, right? State Department of Homeland Security. There's collusion and a decision to expel these individuals anyway in violation of a court order. And.

Even then, you know, these individuals were expelled. Judge Bozberg's order was not heeded. Still, a bunch of very prominent Republicans condemned Judge Bozberg, you know, called for his impeachment. Chief Justice John Roberts actually issued a statement, very rare, very brief statement saying, oh, impeachment is wrong. That's what the appeals process is for. But when the Trump administration took that case to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court screwed over Judge Bozberg and ruled against him and ruled that his restraining order had been wrong. and created this bizarro system of habeas pleadings in specific district courts that actually paved the way for the Trump administration to try to sneak off those other Venezuelan migrants in the middle of the night. And, you know, that was a decision that even Amy Coney Barrett dissented from because it was so obviously wrong on the merits. There was no precedent that said that people facing this kind of predicament, these unlawful deportations without due process, that they had to plead through these habeas filings in the district court, the venue where they were. confined. It was all made up. And it made Bozberg look bad to those who didn't fully understand the case, at least. It gave Republicans a big opportunity to continue to defame him and push for his impeachment. He's not the only district court judge who stood up to Trump who faces impeachment, who then got reversed by SCOTUS. And it just seems to me that where the laws, at least as unsettled as it was there, arguably unsettled, arguably was on Bozberg's side, somebody like the Chief Justice, who's a little bit flexible when he's trying to preserve institutional prerogatives, he could have stood up for the lower court and set a precedent early, early on in Trump 2.0 that said we're not going to play this game. And instead, he reversed Bozberg. And we still haven't had real contempt proceedings because Judge Bozberg keeps getting blocked on. these questions about, well, can he really pursue criminal contempt when the Supreme Court wound up reversing him? It's an awful situation, and all it does is drain vitality and legitimacy from the lower courts and gives the Trump administration even more wiggle room to continue to defy court orders. I mean, let's not forget that the Justice Department official, who allegedly declared that they were going to defy Judge Bozberg's order, was Emil Beauvais, who is now a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We're going to take a short break. Summer always reminds me how quickly dehydration can catch up with me. Between warmer weather, travel, and long days with two kids under three, I can feel when water alone isn't enough. That's why I keep drip drop on hand. It's an easy way to stay ahead of dehydration before I start feeling tired. drip drop is proven fast hydration that's built to hydrate you faster and more effectively than water alone. It uses science-based formulas for rapid hydration so you feel results fast while getting three times the electrolytes of leading sports drinks. And it's trusted by over 90% of top college and pro sports teams. Because hydration isn't just something you do when you're behind. It's how you stay ahead. Drip drop zero sugar plus is a breakthrough fast absorbing formula with an advanced blend of six key electrolytes, 15 essential vitamins and nutrients and no sugar or artificial sweeteners. There are 16 original flavors and 8 zero sugar plus options, including my preferred choice after a long day outside with the kids, zero sugar passion fruit. Right now, drip drop is offering podcast listeners 20% off your first order. Go to dripdrop.com and use the promo code amicus. That's dripdrop.com promo code amicus for 20% off. Stock now at dripdrop.com and use promo code amicus, AMICUS.

We all belong outside. We're drawn to nature, whether it's the recorded sounds of the ocean we doze off to, or the succulents that adorn our homes. Nature makes all of our lives, well, better. Despite all this, we often go about our busy lives removed from it. But the outdoors is closer than we realize. With all trails, you can discover trails nearby and explore confidently. With offline maps and on-trail navigation, download the free app today and make the most of your summer with all trails. Before we head back to our conversation, a word or two about amicus plus on this, the final weekend of 2025 and your last chance to enter the smokeless cigar bar with a special deal that expires at the end of the year. Go to slate.com slash amicus plus and enter promo code amicus 50% off a year's subscription to Slate Plus so you can support the work that we do. You'll also get ad-free access to... all of Slate's podcasts and unlimited reading at Slate.com. And Slate Plus members can play all our Slate games, including the wonderful pairs, without hitting a paywall ever. And this week's plus bonus episode is an absolute bumper bonanza big deal. Don't miss it. Go to slate.com slash amicus plus and enter promo code. Amicus 50 to get a year's worth of Slate Plus for just $59. That's slate.com slash amicus plus promo code AMICUS 50. And thank you, really thank you so much for supporting the work that we do. And we're back with what we learned about Trump's Supreme Court majority in 2025. So here we are at the nut of the thing, which is we really. I think that under some theory or other of three of the six conservative justices are not all in for MAGA, haven't drunk all of the Kool-Aid, genuinely believed that democracy is kind of awesome, and that we made a mistake because I think we thought that they cared that... With the exception of a bunch of nutters like Beauvais and Pam Bondi and other kind of discredited, a lot of nutters who want to be on the Supreme Court someday, generally the Trump administration is seen as Wallace. And instead... What we have seen is all in, double down and triple down on the idea that the Trump administration is like every other administration and any judge who tries to thwart it is a woke liberal, including fistfuls of Trump judges, right, who aren't auditioning for the Supreme Court. And what we hear over and over again is just as the court went after.

DOJ officials during Jack Smith's prosecution of Donald Trump, going after judges now saying, you know, you are clearly, you know, an anti-Trump zealot suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. So I think now we are in the very weird upside-downy world where we have, with rare defections, six MAGA justices, who are all in for Donald Trump. And this is what I wanted to talk about. Why? Why? Because it's hard to believe that they only go to cocktail parties with the farthest of the far-right donors. It's hard to believe that they don't occasionally read the Washington Post or the New York Times. So what is going on? And this is the real thing I think we haven't, not only of you and I not kind of grappled with, but I'm not sure people who are watching the court. have yet satisfactorily explained at least to my ears what possible benefit to being the stewards of the Maga Destruction of America. So I guess my top line thesis, and then I want you to dispute it because I don't know if it's entirely right. But my thesis right now is that these justices have fully cast their lot with Donald Trump and Trumpism and MAGA. That much is obvious from what we've just said and what we've said on this show almost every single episode in 2025. And part of MAGA is anti-democratic, lowercase D, right, is ensuring that minorities of the country can sort of entrench their own power and their own views through the Senate, through the electoral college, through the judiciary, through voter suppression, through assaults on democracy, and just kind of perpetuate this system that privileges the elites, the wealthy, white people, Christians, right, non-LGBQ people, and to just kind of keep it going. And I now feel and fear that the Supreme Court is so intertwined with that perception of who deserves power, who can legitimately exercise power. It's only Trump and Trumpists that they need to protect Trump and protect this entire project from the actual direct forces of democracy. And that is why one of the big pieces of this puzzle that actually we haven't talked about so far on this show, is the voting rights stuff, is the attack on democracy. The Supreme Court is on the brink of delivering another blow to the Voting Rights Act, right? It has been greenlighting voter suppression for so long. It reinstated the Texas racial gerrymander that benefits Republicans. We can go down the line, and I think we will. But I do think that almost any conversation of this kind needs to start there, because what we are seeing is a court that is siding with the Trump agenda, trying to accelerate and facilitate the Trump agenda. And on the other side of it, ensuring, or at least trying to ensure that the people, that blue states, that adults who are capable of voting aren't capable of shaking loose this regime and can't really do anything to stop it and reverse what it has done. Because there's only one true way. It's originalism. It's Trumpism. It's MAGA, right? And

Anyone who tries to contest that is wielding an illegitimate claim to power. And so that kind of justifies the means of taking away voting rights and equal representation and democracy and just doing whatever is necessary to oppress the majority and ensure that what the regime's got going now can just keep going forever. Is that too dark? No, I think it goes to, again, the way sometimes on this beat, we get absolutely caught up in individual cases and the big block. Buster cases as the avatars of the move for the term without looking at all the cases in the aggregate, right? So it is very easy, I think, when you're covering the court to say, oh, you know, the only case that matters is tariffs, right? The only case that matters is transgender athletes. The only case that matters is birthright citizenship. And to be sure, every one of those cases is a blockbuster. But I think if you look at big themes this year, I think you're exactly right. Voting cases, there are a lot of voting cases on the docket. And we've talked about Calais, you know, the gerrymandering case. We've talked about campaign finance. And then there's a case about mail and ballots that the court will be hearing this term as well. And I think we really need to see the trend line, which is how is it possible that a Supreme Court that now has the six votes to do anything it wants? is taking cases about how people vote, where people vote, how campaigns are financed, how votes are counted. I think it's exactly because these are democracy cases. And so the big ticket, you know, cases with the huge social justice implications and the racial justice implications, it's not to say they don't matter. It's to say, I think, in some sense, for the U.S. Supreme Court this year. It's not like this is a shopping spree. To the extent that there's a shopping spree on this term, I think it's vote suppression. And I think it's because we're barreling into midterms and then barreling into the 2028 election after that. And this Supreme Court has 10 years in the future to achieve all of the big ticket items they want. But the way to achieve that is to make sure that Donald Trump and the Republican Party. have a permanent majority. And so I think we just have to really reckon with the fact that these democracy cases, which, by the way, you and I both know, Mark, don't get treated nearly as seriously, broadly in the public conversation. They're arcane. My God, trying to explain campaign finance reform is like a two-burbon job right now. Unbearable. These are abstractions. And so they get devalued, I think, in the discourse. I am really sitting with the fact. And this is the turn that I think we have to make here. If you are a six-justice supermajority and you want to make sure you can do all the stuff you want to do for the next 10 or 20 years, doing it isn't enough. Ensuring that nothing will stop you when an election comes along becomes the end game. And I think the turn that I want to make is, and that's because they are staring down the barrel.

of if the midterms go the way polling suggests they will go. If the 2028 election goes the way polling suggests it will go, they're in big trouble. Can I add one more sort of gloomy parenthetical, which is the birthright citizenship case, absolutely a social justice case? also a democracy case, right? Because it's a case about who gets to be an American, who counts as an American. And if the Trump administration gets its way, would radically reduce the number of people who have a constitutional claim to birthright citizenship, who are nonetheless excluded from our polity, unable to participate in basic aspects of civic life because one especially xenophobic and racist and nativist president. decided that this group of Americans shouldn't actually be Americans. And I think that's a theme that sounds in a lot of these other cases. Like who are the people who get to be full and equal American citizens and who gets something more like skim milk citizenship. And so you see, like in the voting cases, but also in the civil rights cases, the LGBTQ cases, the affirmative action cases, right? It's straight. white men are the highest form of American citizenship. You know, they get to battle affirmative action and slay it. They get to secure exemptions from civil rights laws and non-discrimination laws. They get to ensure that people they don't like aren't competing against their children in athletics. They get this foot in the door anytime they want. They almost got a ban on Mitha Pristone implemented through the judiciary, right? They just keep winning. They can't stop winning. And everybody else is losing. And I think like the best example of this that we're looking at right now is you mentioned Calais. I think we have to keep talking about it. It's so important. But, you know, the Supreme Court is considering this case that will dismantle the Voting Rights Act. what remains of it, allow states to gerrymander black and brown communities into oblivion, right, diminish really in a truly radical and far-reaching way, the electoral power of racial minorities. And at the same time, it just upheld, reinstated a Texas map that was drawn for the purpose of diminishing and altering the electoral strength of black and brown communities to give Republicans more power. So the Supreme Court is saying, Basically, states can take a look at a bunch of racial data. They were looking at racial data. It's quite obvious. And draw lines in a way that ensures that people of color can't exercise as much electoral power. But then if Congress wants to enact a law that limits. state's ability to dilute the electoral power of racial minorities, then it can't do so. And the courts have to step in because of the Equal Protection Clause, right, because of the 15th Amendment. So white people can always run to court and say this map gives too much power to black and brown Americans and they will get a hearing from the Supreme Court and probably a victory. But people of color, if they go to court and say this map isn't giving us enough political power because we were discriminated against on the basis of race, they get nothing, nada, from this court.

You can see which group gets to be American. And I guess this just folds into a broader conversation of it's the group that likes this Supreme Court, that likes what it's doing, that likes what the administration is doing, that wants all of this to continue and escalate. And it's very difficult to look at these cases without considering the political undertones, which are persistently like the court is favoring Donald Trump's Republican Party and the white men who lead it and entrenching their power in. all of these different ways that are going to be extraordinarily hard to undo, even if the regime flipped tomorrow and Democrats had a trifecta. So it's a really good note to say that you can't hive off. Even the immigration cases, right? You can't hive off the racial justice cases or, as you say, birthright citizenship from these fundamental questions about how does democracy work, right? Who gets to be an American and thus who gets to vote? And I think I want to add one other element to this before we really do talk about the stakes for the Supreme Court. And that is that I very, very much believe that we need to stop and take a beat and recognize that the John Roberts, who has devoted his career to circumscribing and cabining the vote, is the John Roberts who started. his career, dedicated to circumscribing and cabining the vote, that nobody should be surprised that Samuel Alito, that the Chief Justice, right, that Brett Kavanaugh are here for it. The idea that, you know, they may or may not disagree with the culture war questions in their sort of individual capacity, but many of the folks who constitute the Maga supermajority were put on the court because of voting. and voting rights. And so in some sense, we've seen the conservative legal movement fish their wish. It's one of the reasons I think you and I wanted to take a moment to say it's the democracy that is animating everything. And that really does lead me to the stakes question. Because we talk about all the time on this show, what are the stakes for women? What are the stakes for LGBTQ communities? What are the stakes for immigrants? But I want to ask the question. What are the stakes for the Supreme Court? Because it seems to me we don't think nearly hard enough about what is on the line for those six MAGA justices if they don't prevail on this shrinking of democracy enough to change electoral outcomes. I think they have reached a point of no return, and I think they are scared of what happens if the political wins switch direction and they are suddenly seeing their grasp on power become more and more tenuous. I think they understand, at least some of them, that they have failed to act as an independent, neutral body of jurists, that in the nation's mind, in the mind of a majority of Americans, they are a political body.

and that they have, as I said, as I will continue to say, cast their lot with Trump and Trumpism. And so if they had spent the past year sort of giving and taking, standing up to Trump sometimes, giving him wins other times, we would be in a very different place. I wouldn't say that the justices would have as much to fear by Republicans potentially losing a lot of political power because I don't think that there would be a democratic appetite for Supreme Court reforms, structural reforms, term limits, or court expansion. adding justices to kind of even out the bench. I think that they could have played this smarter if their goal was to stave off true democratic backlash. That's lowercase and capital D, I guess. And that would have meant just giving Trump probably like 25% more losses. Like just a few more high profile losses for Trump. would have given a lot of people the impression, rightly or wrongly, probably wrongly, but still, that the court was more or less doing its job. I mean, people want to see one branch stand in the way of another when it looks like there is an abuse of power afoot. It's one of the few things that everybody retains from their middle school civics class. And they can understand that the Supreme Court just isn't doing that right now. And so I think that the justices know, like, they are very, very, very far down this road. They They aren't going to turn around. They are too far down it to turn around. They're not going to spend the next year ruling against Trump. They might in the tariffs case. They probably will in the birthright citizen show case, but they're still going to give him and the Republican Party a whole lot of wins. And this time next year, we'll be talking about those, but will also be a few weeks out from the midterms. And, you know, I used to think that Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas were both going to retire very early on in Trump's second term. I no longer believe that. I'm not even sure if Samuel Alito is going to retire. At least right now, it seems like he's clinging on. And they know that, you know, they could be replaced by a liberal if they play their... hand incorrectly, they are going to worry what happens if they are stuck because there's a Democratic Senate and so they can't retire because, ha, the Garland precedent says that a Senate controlled by the opposite party just isn't going to confirm the president's pick. That's pretty clear at this point. And I think that they should be very much worried. I don't purport to claim that this is all going to turn out great. But I think that they are. probably sensing a little bit of a growing fear and anxiety and gnawing terror that they are now so intertwined with Trumpism that if the entire Trumpist project falls apart, they might collapse with it. I saw a couple of people make the very smart point that the win-win here for the stalwarts is if and when Trump is defeated, they will all get to say, see, he was never a threat in the first place, right? Which is a little bit of what we heard, right, in 2020. Like, oh, my God, all you Trump derangement syndrome people, you know, running around, screaming the sky is falling. Like, you were wrong. It wasn't that bad. And I think this is.

quintupled at the Supreme Court. In other words, if and when Donald Trump loses in the future, they get to say, see, He wasn't that bad, right? He was just an ordinary president. And what really frightens me about this is that they will not be seen as the instruments of all his wins. They will just be seen as like a steady hand in a country that lost its mind and hated Donald Trump. And that really does frighten me in terms of the optics of all this. The other piece of this that you have to fold into it is, as you noted, in terms of when they... took a moment to say no on a case that went to the Supreme Court. They want to be the deciders. And I think they are perfectly comfortable if Donald Trump were to lose the next election or if control of the House or the Senate flipped at the midterms. I think they'd be perfectly happy saying, okay, well, now we just have new rules for the new Joe Biden. And they really do have no problem, I think, with the optics of simply changing their mind to bet on the horse that they want to bet on. And so I don't think this looks. bad for them, not in the way you and I think it does, lashing themselves to Trumpism, because in some sense, they get to both say, oh, well, the next president is going to have different rules because there are no rules, but more urgently, because I think it will just be. blown off, Mark, I hope I'm wrong, as, oh my God, the United States was never in an existential democratic crisis. This wasn't Poland. This wasn't Hungary. This wasn't Turkey. This was just business as usual and a bunch of crazy liberals trashing the court. So I hope we can get ahead of that conversation before we get the I told you so conversation. So a couple things. I think you just alluded to the possibility of Trump running again for another term. And I don't want to revive the 22nd Amendment conversation. I don't think he's going to. Alan Dershowitz says he will and he can. But regardless of what all of the very smart lawyers say, and I know it's complicated, I just think he's way too old. He's losing steam every day. He's falling asleep in the Oval Office on live TV. There's something wrong with his hands. He's taking way fewer meetings, doing way fewer talks. He is really running out of gas. And so I don't think he's going to run again in that.

allows the Supreme Court to dodge another major constitutional crisis, which is, you know, an unprecedented third term bid after the passage of the 22nd Amendment seemingly ended that. But setting all of that aside, I think it's interesting, you're worried about the optics of the Supreme Court essentially allowing Republicans to lose, right? Of Republicans losing in 2026 and 28 and the Supreme Court not stepping in the way of that. And then people cheering on the Supreme Court and saying, look, they were good. The sky really wasn't falling. All of these Cassandras, they were wrong. The Supreme Court is a temple of democracy. Well, I'm worried about that. I'm also more worried about the alternative. What if Republicans... lose, but then the Supreme Court reverses it and doesn't allow them to lose. And then all the Cassandra's are proven right. But everybody who otherwise would have been like, see, the Supreme Court is doing the right thing. They're standing out of the way. They're letting democracy take effect. They'll rush into defense goadus. There's clearly a sizable group of people, politicians, commentators, academics, who just believe in defending this court no matter what it does. And if the Supreme Court thwarts democratic will, which I think is a possibility and tries to nullify however many votes as is necessary to hand Republicans in honor and victory, whether it's in a presidential race or a Senate race or whatever, there will be people who defend it. And so it puts us in this very kind of no-win position where it's like if the Supreme Court does the right thing, then we're accused of being Chicken Littles and Cassandra's. If the Supreme Court does the wrong thing, then we're told it's not actually wrong. can't be because it's the Supreme Court. And we're accused of, I don't know, you know, schizophrenic critiques that don't hang together of the justices and just being mad about the substance because we're partisans and whatever. Like, you know, we see it all the time. So I'm curious if you think there is anything we can say on this show right now that cannot be written off by a Supreme Court defender as little more than catastrophizing because of course everything will turn out fine, the court is trustworthy and a pillar of democracy that shall not fall. Yeah, no. I mean, I think anything that we say at this point. We're doomed. Or, you know, well, it's not. We're boxed in. No, I think that we have to keep saying what we think with the understanding that, you know, the six MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have been using both journalists and academic critics and critics out in public generally. for target practice for quite some time, right? And I think that an unwillingness to look seriously at the stakes of what has happened to the country on their watch is like, it's not my problem, Mark. It's not your problem. At the end of the day, it's theirs. Our job, I think, is to keep saying what is and to keep triangulating what is against what the rules were only a year ago, five years ago, 10 years ago when the court cared, at least about the appearance. of doing justice as opposed to just spinning the wheel and seeing what turns out today in Donald Trump's favor. So this has been a little bit of a dire conversation, Mark, in which for listeners, loud and clear, I hope they heard us saying, Scotus is coming for your democracy. And that seems super bad. Pay attention.

I want to close Mark with the theme that you and I have been sounding and that I deeply believe, which is there is not much we can do about that. There is a lot we can do about voting and about securing voting and getting out the vote. And the thing that I think the learned helplessness of we will eat jelly beans and watch SCOTUS go off the cliff is not what you and I are. here for. So I think we end where we often end these conversations about SCOTUS isn't going to save us. And as we've just flagged, SCOTUS may be in the bag for making it harder to protect democracy with your thoughts going into 2026 about the fact that none of that is a foregone conclusion. It is not a foregone conclusion, but it would require massively. thinking and not just a week before elections, how is it that we make sure that doesn't happen? Yeah, that's a big ask. In our Slate Plus bonus episode, I will be ranting for quite some time about all of the things that the informed citizenry of this country need to be doing to stave off disaster and to essentially begin another reconstruction of this country and repair the damage that Trump and Trumpism and a MAGA Supreme Court have all done. I have a lot of big ideas. I realize some may think that they're impractical. I think now is the time to really, really think big and not allow for kind of traditional limitations on democratic courage and willpower to limit how we conceive of this recovery going and what it has to look like and where it needs to lead. I think now is the time for everybody to chip in. We need to ensure that people are voting and complaining and protesting and running for office. and setting up the chess pieces so that they are in the right place when the moment comes that this next reconstruction can begin. And I just think not giving up hope still remains somehow after all this time, the most important thing. I mean, we've talked about this. Everybody now talks about the difference between cynicism and nihilism. It's okay to expect the worst. It's okay to believe that the Supreme Court is going to do some really bad things, but we can't give up. because that is what the other side always wants. The forces that oppose democracy and civil rights want a kind of mass surrender. And we just can't do that. And we don't need to do that because there is a way out of this mess. I believe it. If I really, really squint, I can start to see it taking shape. But it's going to require everybody who's mad right now, who's mad as hell, to start getting angry at people who don't believe that this kind of big sweeping reform can happen and to start pushing elected representatives and public figures to talk about what it has to look like. Because Project 2025 didn't all sort of fall into place in one day. And Donald Trump's second term was carefully plotted out by people who simply did not.

accept that there would be limitations on his power. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I do think the Democrats could learn a thing or two about not automatically shooting down their biggest most aspirational proposals and thinking very carefully about how they can wield power not to suppress individual rights and voting rights and all of the things that Trump is doing, but to lift up and enshrine democracy in a way that will be enduring for years to come. Your TED Talk is way, way better, but my way of saying the same thing. is, you know, every single time somebody sends a note that says nothing matters because the Supreme Court is going to screw us in the end. Stephen Miller gets his wings. I refuse to live in a world in which Stephen Miller has wings or even, you know, like credibility. And so I think we have to do the hard work. And the other thing is, and we're going to talk about this, Mark, you and I, in the plus bonus segment that's coming up. But I think we need to understand that so many of the loopholes that have been exploited to constrict the vote are preexisting, right? They are baked in to the... the operating system that, you know, whether it's the Malaportion Senate that you reference, whether it's gerrymandering, whether it's big money in politics. So much of this has never yet been perfected. So we can't walk around, and Cheryl and Eiffel made this point on the show a couple of weeks ago, we cannot walk around saying there was a perfect democracy that was ripped away. No, there's a democracy that needs an immense, inordinate amount of work, not from politicians, but from every single person, as you said, who agrees to be a poll watcher, who agrees to be a poll worker, who runs for some office, right? That is how democracy will get perfected. And the fact that these glitches in the system have been weaponized to make it look as though democracy is unachievable. No, those are glitches in the system that come from the founding and can be fixed. But it's not the kind of thing that's going to happen if you put in an hour a week on this project. It can only be fixed. If people really recommit to the proposition. That what American democracy is is not decided by six justices or five justices at the Supreme Court. It is decided by every single person who listen to this podcast and is very, very frustrated. Our point here isn't to frustrate people. It's to say, happy new year. There's a lot of work to do. Yeah, yeah. So let's get going. That is all for this episode of Amicus. Happy New Year. Thank you so much for listening. If you are starved for more, join us in the Amicus Plus bonus episode right after this one. We are rifling through our mailbag, which is bursting at the seams with very smart questions from our loyal plus steers. This is your last chance to get a year of Slate Plus for just $59. Our special 50% discount offer expires at the end of the year.

So go to slate.com slash amicus plus and enter promo code amicus 50. That's AMI-C-U-S-5-0 to get your special offer. That bonus episode is available for you to listen to right now. We'll see you there. A big thank you for your letters and questions. Keep them coming. We are always reachable by email at amicus at slate.com. We love your letters. You can find us at Facebook.com slash amicus podcast. You can also leave a comment if you're listening on Spotify or on YouTube or rate us and review us on Apple Podcasts. Sarah Burningham is Amicus's senior producer. Our producer is Patrick Fort. Hillary Fry is Slate's editor-in-chief. Susan Matthews as executive editor, Mia Lobel is executive producer of Slate Podcasts. And Ben Richmond is our senior director of Operations. We will be back with another episode of Amicus. Next year, which means next week. Until then, take good care. This episode is presented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Many of the most important legal fights in this country come down to a basic question. Who gets to make decisions about our bodies and our health care? That question isn't theoretical. It's playing out right now. The Trump administration's backers in Congress are trying to permanently defund Planned Parenthood, an effort to shut down health centers and block patients' care, especially from those with low incomes. Together, we have the power to protect and expand affordable care. Visit plannedparenthood.org slash defend and make a gift today.

That refresh you've been putting off until the right deal came along? It's here. Wayfair's Black Friday and July sale is happening now so you can finally get the style you've been waiting for for less. Get up to 80% off area rugs and up to 60% off outdoor and bedroom furniture. Shop Wayfair's huge selection of styles and find the piece to fit your style, budget, and space. Plus, free shipping. Black Friday and July ends July 27th. Shop today at Wayfair.com. Every style, every home.